A hotly contested exemption from safeguard duties on solar cells has now been terminated -- at least for the time being -- after the Court of International Trade on Nov. 19 declined to expand an injunction to include the administration’s latest bid to withdraw the exclusion, and lifted a temporary restraining order against the withdrawal (see 2010260025 and 2011090033). The elimination of the exemption takes immediate effect, according to a CBP spokesperson.
Court of International Trade
The United States Court of International Trade is a federal court which has national jurisdiction over civil actions regarding the customs and international trade laws of the United States. The Court was established under Article III of the Constitution by the Customs Courts Act of 1980. The Court consists of nine judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is located in New York City. The Court has jurisdiction throughout the United States and has exclusive jurisdictional authority to decide civil action pertaining to international trade against the United States or entities representing the United States.
Stephen Vaden of Tennessee was confirmed to be a judge on the Court of International Trade by the Senate Nov. 18, on a 49-43 vote. He previously served as general counsel at the Department of Agriculture.
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 18 weighed in on the meaning of “not minced” and “packed in oil” for seafood preparations in the tariff schedule, finding tuna salad pouches imported by StarKist are both, and must be entered under a high 35% duty rate.
Complaint filings at the Court of International Trade seeking to have the Section 301 lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings vacated and the duties refunded (see 2009210025) slowed to a trickle in November, with fewer than 10 filed within the last two weeks. Of the roughly 3,700 complaints filed since Sept. 10, about 140 have been filed since Sept. 24. That’s the two-year anniversary date of List 3 taking effect and was within the statute of limitations that many lawyers cited under court rules to establish the timeliness of their actions. A plaintiff must file an action within two years “after the cause of action accrues,” court rules say. Lawyers in the subsequent actions will try to establish that the clock started when their importer clients first paid the tariffs.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 9-15:
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 12 dismissed an importer’s challenge to the antidumping duty rate it was assessed following completion of an administrative review that covered its Chinese exporter. Intercontinental Chemicals (ICC) should have participated in the administrative review if it wanted to challenge its exporter’s oversight that led to the assessments at a rate of 154.07%, rather than the zero rate the exporter was assigned in the review, CIT said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 2-8:
Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann extended until Nov. 21 his temporary restraining order barring the government from ending an exemption for bifacial panels from safeguard duties on solar cells, he said in an order issued Nov. 6. The temporary hold had been scheduled to expire Nov. 7, but Katzmann said he is still considering plaintiff Invenergy’s motion to amend an existing injunction to stop President Donald Trump’s Oct. 10 presidential proclamation on the safeguard duties from taking effect. The proclamation had provided for termination of the bifacial exemption effective Oct. 25, but was blocked by Katzmann’s temporary restraining order the day before it took effect (see 2010260025).
The U.S. government is moving too slowly in the processing of refunds of duties paid on imported steel from Turkey that were subject to additional Section 232 tariffs, Transpacific Steel said in a Nov. 4 filing with the Court of International Trade. Transpacific was the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit over the tariffs. A three-judge CIT panel ruled that the tariffs were improperly imposed because they were put in place after the statutory timelines for Section 232 tariffs (see 2007140046). A government appeal filed in September with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is awaiting a ruling.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 26 - Nov. 1: